Originally Posted by christos200
1) There are and some real << soldiers >> in the army.
2) There are people who can built spaceships.
3) Although i like realism, in my opinion star wars is a world of magic. Of a mysterious force. Of the great jedi knights of the old republic. I just want to write something that would make the others enjoy reading it. Remember, star wars is phantasy.
1; I know you had some real soldiers, otherwise the raid that blocked the supply lines would have failed.
2; any enemy is going to deny you the capability to proceed if they can. What I have described is what they would do, and they would continue to smash the attempts to build new ships for as long as it takes. While the Republic itself would proabably not be able to, the worlds around you would do it; after all, the ships and troops used by the Republic in KOTOR were more likely units of the member planets, since they didn't have an organized army until the Clone Wars.
3; enjoyment in reading calls for two things, a good story (If you had not divided the Jedi evenly then had your army armed with such inferior weapons it would have been excellent) and what an older writer called 'willing suspension of disbelief'. The reader has to accept that the world you create is valid; that magic and monster exist, that weapons made of nothing but energy will form a blade rather than merely a beam, that the Force works. We all suspended that disbelief when we decided Star Wars was a good movie and later a good series of books, games etc. We wouldn't be here if we had not.
But that disbelief returns in full force when you throw something out that makes absolutely no sense. That is why I gave you two different versions of what peasant could mean. If they are old feudal style peasants, they do not have the skills necessary to complete even part of what you envision. If they are like I described, they would be able to do some of it.
Note I did not deny you weapons and vehicles, only that the weapon choice made no sense. My arguments regarding transport was merely that it doesn't matter how many men you can field if you cannot transport them to their target and keep them supplied. In fact before the War Between the States, no army in history numbered even a million men; without railroads and later large trucks, you could not get the supplies to the men farthest from the supply source. Remember that while both sides fielded a million plus during that war, the largest battle of that war; Gettysburg, had less than 140,000 men maneuvering and fighting in the field.
The reason the police are able to quell riots is not because they have the authority, it is that they are usually armed with better weapons and tactics. In military parlance, ranged weapons are a force multiplier. A man with a bow can kill men at ranges up to 500 yards and fire 12 aimed shots a minute, which means that in the time you take to run that distance, a good archer can kill eight men, meaning that he is worth eight line infantrymen with swords. By the same token, a man with a Spencer or Henry Rifle facing men armed with muzzle loading rifles was worth ten of them. And this is only on the infantry level.
Muskets when they were introduced were better than bows only because the sheer terror of having a dozen fellows blown away in an instant (Along with an ear shattering soud) because you are facing volley fire will disconcert the people being fired upon. The Chinese used gunpodwer rocket and firecrackers to terroize the horses of their opponents, since the weapons themselves had little utility. But it did confuse the enemy enough for other weapons to take up the strain.
There is an axiom in military strategy, not attributed to any specific General, merely a fact that can be seen by outside observers; An army is always training to fight the last war, not this one.
Fully rifle equipped troops surprised everyone, because until the War Between the States, no military commander had considered how much tactics had to change because of them. In the Crimea, they just thought the difference was an aberration, so even the foreign observers during our war ignored that the tactics of Napoleon's day were no longer valid when Lee sent in Pickett's Brigade. Europe had still not learned this lesson before WWI, and the idea of fire and maneuver, which the Americans introduced during that war literally stunned both allies and enemies alike.
The German introduction of out of line of sight artillery allowed them to keep at bay over twice their number on the Western Front, and machine guns which only had seen a lick and a promise in our War Between the States allowed the German army to reduce the size of the division from 25,000 to only 16 thousand even in the midst of the war.
Every innovation that has stood the test of time has made armies smaller, more efficient, and more lethal.
That is what I have been trying to show you, because even peasants of the feudal mentality can learn to operate and maintain bolt action rifles and simple revolvers. Peasants on my level can learn to operate a tank or aircraft. They don't need to be able to build them, only to operate them.
But to build a ship from planning stages to completed model you need skilled artisans. You need men who can form the plating of their hulls, develop the guns, missiles, or whatever weapon they are armed with, the engines to power it, and the skilled crews who understand how the hyper drive works and be able to fix it to man them.
As I said, if your army had been smaller (Say a quarter to half a million, with a corresponding reduction of the force being attacked) if you had not issued such pathetic weapons (A small reduction between them, say arming yours with projectile weapons rather than blasters) and if you had taken all of the additional countervailing factors into account, I would have judged your work adequate bordering on excellent. Adding the Jedi no matter how unrealistic your premise of why they joined the rebellion would have been acceptable as well.
In passing, the reason I was accepted as Critic here was because of my own desire (Which matched those who hired me) that I not be merely a movie critic, telling everyone what you did wrong. Rather I was to act as a teacher, as if you are in High School (Middle school according to your location) who tells you, 'no, this does not work, try this instead'. I do not know if you have read it. but the book It by Stephen King shows what I mean.
Bill (One of the characters) is taking a college level creative writing course. The teacher is hung up on what is called the underlying metaphor; what is the author really trying to examine in society, rather than what the story is about on the surface. Bill suggests that sometimes an author is showing exactly what he means in the story. The teacher acts as if this were heresy, ending his diatribe with 'until you learn this, you will never become a real author.'
Bill's next story links to what had happened in his previous life, a young boy finding out there is a real monster in the basement, confronting and defeating it. The teacher grades it as C- if I remember correctly. Bill returns to his dorm room, and instead of accepting the teacher's advise, retypes the cover page for publication, and sends it to a magazine which promptly snaps it up.
Overjoyed at his first sale as an author, he posts two things on the professor's bulletin board (Where someone dropping a class would post his request) nothing more than his class member card, and a copy of the check he received. The teacher marks his card with a bright red F then has the audacity to add, 'as if money is the judge of who is a good writer!'.
In other words, my job is not actually to be a critic as people define the term. My job is to help you be a better writer and make reading your material more enjoyable for all of us.
I happened to like the movie, and except for the obviously propaganda points (The shot down pilot lambasting the teens in question because they have better food than the survivors in Denver) it was pretty good. The dialogue between the Cuban commander and the KGB rep ((I used to be a Partisan, now I am merely a policeman) was choice. IMDB didn't think the quote worthy of a listing, but I did.
Do not take my criticisms as bullying. I know as well as you that we are dealing with a fantasy world. But if you want your readers to enjoy your work, don't give them something that cannot be swallowed by them. To keep the readers, you have to create a vibrant world with realistic enemies and situations. To as I parphrase shakespeare, hold up a mirror to reveal what is there.